The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[sandra L]

May I also point out that neither Corinne nor Luke knew what the questions would be until the day of the actual test itself. So there was no way they could have "rehearsed" answers in advance - both went into the test completely "blind,"  prepared to answer any question put to them.

For me, that speaks volumes, regardless of the "admissibility" of polygraphs as evidence.

[nugnug]

are so they couldn't possibly train themselves to pass the test.

[sandra L]

Just to clarify, by "the day of the test," I mean actually in the room with the polygraph tester - they didn't even have any warning before going into the test itself.

So yes, nugnug, no chance to "train themselves" whatsoever.

[susan]

nugnug I would not have thought it possible to train yourself to pass a polygraph test people try different ways but they are sussed out very quick.

[nugnug]

so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.

[sandra L]

Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.

These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.

However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.

[susan]

Hi Sandra L  to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.

[bloggs and son]

Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.

These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.

However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.

A very good point Sandra. The one backs up the other so to speak.

[sandra L]

Hi Sandra L  to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.

Yes, there are many reports of how difficult it is to cheat the test, and similarly, arguments about how unreliable the test is - I really had no idea one way or the other, since the available information seemed to be split 50/50. I will see if I can find the links to the reports I read when the possibiity of Corinne and Luke taking the tests came up - if I still have them, I'll try to post them up.

A little background info on this case - Corinne and Luke had both said, right from the beginning, that they would take polygraphs anywhere, any time, when it became apparent that the police investigation was focussing on Luke as the perpetrator. They were refused repeatedly, and for a number of reasons - they're not admissible as evidence, they can't be done in Scottish prisons, etc, etc. It was only this year that we were lucky enough to discover that they can be done in Scottish prisons (or any other prisons for that matter) - as soon as that was clear, the whole thing swung into motion, and thereafter, it all happened very quickly for Corinne.

It was a little more difficult with Luke, as the prison took some time to make its decision - I don't think that was so much about whether it should be allowed or not, but more to do with the security arrangements because of the high profile of the case. What I will say is that the prison was fantastic once permission had been obtained - they really accomodated the difficulties of time, privacy, etc, and were very helpful all round.

You can read about Luke's case at http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/, although that site is now in much need of updating. There's also a forum which runs to over 800 pages - it's a lot of reading and a very complex case. I rarely have time to post other than on the above forum or facebook - I just happen to have a few days free at the moment, and noticed the discussion about the polygraph on here, so thought I'd pop in and say hello.

[nugnug]

now the question is will other people involved in the case except the challenge so readily or at all.

[OnceSaid]

Hi Sandra, do you know how many questions were asked in total, in both Luke's and his mothers test?

[OnceSaid]

so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.

Absolutely.  If I was Luke Mitchell's mother and I was telling the truth all along and had nothing to hide, I would do the test but I would have been an absolute nervous wreck, before during and after.  Over the years, this woman has suffered terribly due to the negative press attention, which in turn resulted in her being asaulted, threatened, her buisness attacked etc.  The consequences would have been too great and dangerous to take a risk, if she were in anyway being dishonest.

If I was Luke Mitchell and I was telling the truth and had nothing to hide, same as his mum, I would have been a wreck, but I would have done the test.  In a prison enviroment, if I had anything to hide whatsover, I would not take the test, especially after pleading my innocence from day one.  To fail a lie detector in prison when claiming to be a moj victim, could put your life in danger, so it would not be worth it having to look over your shoulder 24/7 getting caught out in a lie.

If it were me, reports of the tests being unreliable, or advice that it could all backfire, would probably fall on deaf ears, because if I knew I was telling the truth, the chance to prove it would be so great, it would be something I had to do regardless, but as long as I knew I was being honest there would be no hesitation. 

I'm with nugnug on this, who else related to this case would be brave enough to step up to the plate?

[nugnug]

well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imagine

i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.

i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.

[sandra]

well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imagine

i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.

i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.

polygraph tests are a fake science. they just dont work and the mitchells were lucky not to have come of even worse because of all this.

[nugnug]

so why do the authority use them then if there fake science.

luck had nothing to do with it nobody can be that lucky.